rank closed three casinos last quarter and revenue went up 5%

you're doing arithmetic on two numbers whose basis nobody has defined. the findings say "lost" for that one and "recycled through a venue" for the £85,000 case, and they don't tell you what either measure is. so no, you can't net them off and walk away with ten grand
the breach is that a long-standing customer's pattern changed that violently and nothing in their system reacted. whatever the figure at the end turns out to be, it's irrelevant to whether anyone looked
 
Thet self excluded one in @dunover's post has stopped me cold a bit, because I didn't know any of this until about an hour ago. I'm on gamstop. I assumed that was it, done, covered. but gamstop online only covers GB licensed websites and apps. the land based casinos run on a completely separate scheme called SENSE, and betting shops are a third one, and bingo premises a fourth. so is a grosvenor club covered by my gamstop or not? because if it's the same account on both sides like @TheAddict says, that seems like it should matter quite a lot
 
I had to look this up myself last year on behalf of a family member, so I can offer part of an answer at least. There is no single exclusion that covers every form of gambling in this country. GAMSTOP covers online. SENSE covers the licensed land-based casinos. There is a separate GAMSTOP scheme for betting shops, BISES for bingo premises through the Bingo Association, and BACTA or SmartEXCLUSION for the arcades and the adult gaming centres. Five schemes, five sign-ups, and the advice is to register with each one that applies to you.
Whether your particular registration reaches a particular club, I am afraid I cannot tell you. I would not take my word for it on that.
 
@helenakp short answer is no. Rank's own safer gambling pages put it plainly enough - exclude from Grosvenor and you're enrolled in SENSE by default unless you ask them not to be, and SENSE covers the UK casinos but not websites. Your GAMSTOP registration stops you logging in. It doesn't stop you walking in.

The G1 terms are what caught my eye when I went through them, because they're separate again from the national schemes. Venue and online are treated as separate channels. You choose: exclude from the clubs, from the website, or both. You can extend it across all Grosvenor clubs and websites including meccabingo.com if you ask for that. Minimum six months, processing up to 72 hours - though the safer gambling page says national schemes can take up to a week to reach other operators, so there are two timeframes coming out of the same company depending which page you land on.

Then there's a clause saying that if you do get access in-club while you're excluded, they're not responsible for the losses and they may withhold winnings. So one account, one balance, two doors, and you have to remember to lock both. On an account they designed to be one account.
 
before everyone sharpens the pitchforks, think about what that clause is actually guarding. without it excluding becomes a free roll - exclude yourself, play anyway, keep the wins, claim the losses back as their fault. id be through that gap before you finished reading it and so would half this thread

doesn't make it feel any better when its you stood at the cage. but the clause is doing a job
 
The channel split isn't an oversight, mate, it's just older than the account is. Land-based exclusion was built around door staff and a photograph on a register, because that's the only enforcement a building has ever had. Online is a database check at login. Different mechanisms because they were solving different problems in different decades. I watched this from inside a Glasgow club for years. The lad on the door does know faces and he does miss people, both on the same shift.
Where it falls down is where Addict has put his finger. The commercial side merged the two into one wallet and the exclusion side never caught up with it. That gap is a design decision somebody signed off on.
 
machines number in that statement is the one nobody has picked up. gaming machines revenue up 14% in the quarter, tables up 3, electronic gaming up 5. 14 against 3. the floors are turning into machine sheds with a roulette table in the corner for decoration, and that's been happening for years. which is also why MGD is the tax they're scared of and not the table one
 
Since the tax argument keeps surfacing in pieces, the actual position as it stands today:
  • Machine Games Duty - 5% on the low-stake machines, 20% on most of them where a play costs up to £5, 25% where a single play can cost more than £5. Those bands haven't moved since 2015. Nothing has been announced for the 28th. The Times reported in September that the Treasury were modelling higher rates and a government source called rises "definitely on the table again", which is not the same as a decision.
  • Remote Gaming Duty - went from 21% to 40% on 1 April this year. Online casino and slots.
  • General Betting Duty - betting in shops stays at 15%. Online betting goes to 25%, but not until 1 April 2027, and horseracing, in-shop terminals, spread and pool bets are carved out.
  • Bingo duty on land-based premises was abolished outright in April.
  • And the one that's been missing from this entire thread, which is my fault as much as anyone's - Gaming Duty. That's the duty on casino gaming yield and it's the one that actually lands on Grosvenor's tables. It's banded: 15% on the first slice of gross gaming yield, then 20, then 30, then 40, and 50% on everything above the top band. It wasn't touched by the reforms and the bands are frozen.
Which is worth sitting with before anyone calls 40% the worst number in the room. The top casino band is 50%.

Both sides of this thread are arguing they're the ones being punished and both are reading a real number.
 
Did you read what Bill just put up at all, son? 50 per cent at the top end. Your forty is the second worst number on the page. And whatever the number is, the fella it lands on is different. 40% lands on a company. The 20% on my category C lands on me, and if it moves I've the choice of taking the machines out or taking the hit, and either way that's my takings and not a line in a report somebody reads in the city. Casinos closing and my fruit machines are the same conversation. You just can't see it because nothing you play has a postcode.
 
no offence man but if your business plan looses to a tax change on three fruit machines it wasn't much of a business plan
 
21 years and your accountant has to ring you to tell you your own tax band. ok
and the system works fine when you don't chase it, not that anyone asked before having a go
 
lmao going back a bit tho, nobody has said where the 5 mill actually goes. its the consolidated fund. thats the treasury. so the bloke who lost the 50k gets nothing, the staff who got made redundant get nothing, and the goverment who are about to decide the machine tax get five milion quid off the company who's lobbying them about it. great system that. workign exactly as intended im sure
 
thing that gets me in all this is the 51. commission says three entities running 51 casinos. then three shut in the same quarter. so is it 48 now or was the 51 already after. nobody writing these articles seems bothered which
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top